Super Evolution and the Flood

This is a first for me. I have never seen anyone (until now...thank you very much) actually claim that the elephants brought their years supply of food with them. Priceless...simply priceless. I now have this wonderful visual image of the happy aardvark couple approaching the ark, carrying their little green plastic ant farm along with them (you all know the one...it has the silhouette of the farm inside..very cute), obviously thinking it was more of only a "Three hour tour" they were embarking upon.

Yes. it was a partial quote...a partial quote that contained something so patently stupid that I felt a need to respond...seeing as how it was indeed the first time in my entire life that can ever recall reading something so ridiculous. Besides, the partial quote could stand on its own merits. The remaining portion of the quote did not in any way change the meaning of the portion I posted. And here you are repeating the exact same thing. So what's you point?Admittedly, you go on to further state that there was also the possibility thatbut that in no way changes the meaning of the first part. So I guess we're still stuck with Mr and Mrs aardvark carrying along their little green ant farm, aren't we? I mean, that's what they would needed to have done, according to you at least.Look, your book talks about the flood, the ark, and the animals included on board. You say that since it does not mention anything about Noah collecting enough food, that the only logical conclusions are that either the animals brought their own or that god provided it. Well I call "Bull Shit". You see...your problem lies in the fact that your book also makes no mention of these options either. Do you understand? You're saying that since "A" isn't mentioned, that therefore "B" or "C" are the only possibilities. But "B" and "C" are not mentioned either, so it's obvious that you're just making this shit up as you go along.Why should we accept that your two options are the only possibilities? Why can't we conclude that Noah did go gather the food? Or that the Ark itself was edible and that the animals slowly consumed their own ship as floated around during their cruise? Or that the animals ate a really big meal before getting on board and therefore weren't all that hungry? Or that Noah scooped up dead carcasses and floating vegetation as they bobbed up and down? (Actually, that last option seems the most likely...don't you agree?)But then, we could continue this line of argument ad infinitum, could we not? Like why would god need to supply them food at all? Why could he not simply make them go into some sort of state of suspended animation? But then, why do that when he could simply strike down everything except for Noah, his family, and the animals he wanted to save...why use a flood? But then, why not ....blah, blah, blah.Edited by FliesOnly, : To fix a couple of the more obvious typos

Because there is a vocal group of people that want this idea taught in a science class as factual. In order to do that, we need to understand how it is possible that all these animals got to, got on, and got off the ark...and then how they managed to evolve and spread throughout the World in such a short period of time.And this is in addition to all the other logical and logistical problems presented by the concept of a global flood and the Ark.Edited by FliesOnly, : to add some "missing" stuff.

Great...it's refreshing to see this sort of thing. I agree. But then, we already avoid this in science (that's why we call it science), so it's not really an issue.